Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 warboss wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Requiet wrote:


Tl;Dr - yes this is a blob game still

Well, that is disappointing.

Seconded. The easy fix might be to simply lower the max model cap to encourage less spam that contribute to/facillitates blobbing. 15 models is still a lot for what is ostensibly a skirmish game imo.

Well, with the individual quality of things like gaunts, boyz and guardsmen being what it is, they are going to be dying a lot more than those smaller amounts of power armour or other elite troops in cover. I believe this is once again an issue that can be easily fixed by using liberal amounts of actual terrain on the field (which the amount GW usually shows is not).

Something I'm also rather confident about is extending the game to 4' x 4' board. Spread objectives around more and device fun special missions and voila, blobbing with the whole team issue gets avoided, maneuvering matters more, the game gets a proper slower build-up and what not. Also, real soldiers do tend to operate in pretty close pairs or teams that might get represented in this abstracted game form by small blobbing here and there, so no harm done there.

 warboss wrote:
Seconded. The easy fix might be to simply lower the max model cap to encourage less spam that contribute to/facillitates blobbing. 15 models is still a lot for what is ostensibly a skirmish game imo.

Only the 21st century (read: Infinity) definition of skirmish. 15-20 models a side was a typical Rogue Trader battle.

 Chairman Aeon wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Seconded. The easy fix might be to simply lower the max model cap to encourage less spam that contribute to/facillitates blobbing. 15 models is still a lot for what is ostensibly a skirmish game imo.

Only the 21st century (read: Infinity) definition of skirmish. 15-20 models a side was a typical Rogue Trader battle.

Gorkamorka, Necromunda, and Mordheim also typically had less than 15 models per side in their heyday (although I can't comment about the latest release of Necromunda) and they predated Infinity by at least a decade. I'm not saying that no skirmish game ever went or even continues now to go to 20 but rather that it's above the norm and a decrease to 15 to even out the odds for lower model armies wouldn't be abnormal for the subgenre. I've obviously never played this version of Kill Team but previous ones that I did play were weighted in favor of higher model count armies. YMMV.

It they included some larger things (Terminators, MANZ, Wraithguard, light walkers/speeders/bikes) then it would be less of an issue.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/07/24/24th-july-my-kill-team-rhu-james-adeptus-mechanicusgw-homepage-post-2/

Too bad the dataspike on Rhu ruststalker have no rule because 8th happen.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

I cannot wait to move + advance + shoot blobs of flamer guardsmen.

Flamers are assault weapons already...

 BrookM wrote:

Is the faction keyword things like Orks / Necrons / eldar / Dark Eldar?

I'd have loved to have some scions working with a space marine, or a plague marine with cultist followers.

One thing to bear in mind with all this talk of blobbing is that multi-shot weapons become much, MUCH more powerful in this game system when models are bunched together. a multi-shot weapon (say, a frag cannon) can only get a single flesh wound on a guardsman - the only way to get multiple wound rolls is by using a multi damage weapon - but against four guardsmen grouped up, you can roll the 2d6 and say "ok, every guardsman eats two hits of this roll of 8.

Same deal with say, a storm bolter. "I'm going to make one shot against each guardsmen" is going to be much more effective than 4 shots on one guardsman.

the_scotsman wrote:
One thing to bear in mind with all this talk of blobbing is that multi-shot weapons become much, MUCH more powerful in this game system when models are bunched together. a multi-shot weapon (say, a frag cannon) can only get a single flesh wound on a guardsman - the only way to get multiple wound rolls is by using a multi damage weapon - but against four guardsmen grouped up, you can roll the 2d6 and say "ok, every guardsman eats two hits of this roll of 8.

Same deal with say, a storm bolter. "I'm going to make one shot against each guardsmen" is going to be much more effective than 4 shots on one guardsman.

Excellent point!

There is also IIRC no negative ballistic skill modifier attached to splitting your fire, which makes it even more useful and less of a gamble with the already quite a few BS modifiers built into the system.

eldritchx wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 BrookM wrote:

I cannot wait to move + advance + shoot blobs of flamer guardsmen.

Flamers are assault weapons already...

Fair enough. Lmao.

Well, sentiment stands with other, actually correct points.

How does the multi-shot rule work?

My concern was that flamers dont now work very well against horde because of the lack of a template but if multi shots can work against blobbed up models, flamers become a lot more effective.

Also does cover give you a bonus to your armour save in addition to being obscured?

Thanks.

Nidzrule! wrote:
How does the multi-shot rule work?

My concern was that flamers dont now work very well against horde because of the lack of a template but if multi shots can work against blobbed up models, flamers become a lot more effective.

Also does cover give you a bonus to your armour save in addition to being obscured?

Thanks.

I may have the exact number wrong, but it was effectively "if you declare a target for your multi-shot weapon, after determining the number of shots you may allocate those shots to the target model or any other enemy model within a couple inches of the target that you can also draw line of sight to. Make the hit rolls separately." I believe the number of inches was 3", but it might have been 2".

the big downside is that if you do pump multiple shots into a model you can only cause ONE wound roll. like, frag cannon hits a guardsman, hits 6 times, wounds 5 times, he fails four saves, he takes ONE wound roll and only gets flesh wounded. Multi-damage weapons, like lascannons, do cause you to roll multiple wound rolls if they overkill models, making them much deadlier.

Split fire is 2"

Thanks for that.

My original gut feel was that shooty, horde armies (i.e. Guardsmen) would do well in killteam because based on the scenery plans, there honestly isnt that much ability to hide from a shooty side. Also every weenie gets a injury roll to survive (granted they do degrade in effectiveness).

Morale is a problem but if you could blob up, you negate that. Unless of course these multi shot weapons can split fire. Anyway, this shows the developers have thought about this eventuality. Looking forward to trying the game properly with different lists and seeing how they pan out!

On another point do models get bonuses to cover save in the same way that 40k units do?

Nidzrule! wrote:
Thanks for that.

My original gut feel was that shooty, horde armies (i.e. Guardsmen) would do well in killteam because based on the scenery plans, there honestly isnt that much ability to hide from a shooty side. Also every weenie gets a injury roll to survive (granted they do degrade in effectiveness).

Morale is a problem but if you could blob up, you negate that. Unless of course these multi shot weapons can split fire. Anyway, this shows the developers have thought about this eventuality. Looking forward to trying the game properly with different lists and seeing how they pan out!

On another point do models get bonuses to cover save in the same way that 40k units do?

Shooty horde armies will probably fare better than shooty elite armies, but I think melee rush is going to be pretty king in KT. The "everybody's in combat, if I fall back I just get charged again" problem is very real on a 24" board.

I don't think you get +1sv for cover in kill team, just -1 to hit.

the_scotsman wrote:

Nidzrule! wrote:
Thanks for that.

My original gut feel was that shooty, horde armies (i.e. Guardsmen) would do well in killteam because based on the scenery plans, there honestly isnt that much ability to hide from a shooty side. Also every weenie gets a injury roll to survive (granted they do degrade in effectiveness).

Morale is a problem but if you could blob up, you negate that. Unless of course these multi shot weapons can split fire. Anyway, this shows the developers have thought about this eventuality. Looking forward to trying the game properly with different lists and seeing how they pan out!

On another point do models get bonuses to cover save in the same way that 40k units do?

Shooty horde armies will probably fare better than shooty elite armies, but I think melee rush is going to be pretty king in KT. The "everybody's in combat, if I fall back I just get charged again" problem is very real on a 24" board.

I don't think you get +1sv for cover in kill team, just -1 to hit.

Don't you also get a negative to the injury roll too if you are obscured?

Yup, standing behind cover gives a -1 to both sides in a fight.

There is also the hilarious option to fall back 3" as a reaction to someone charging you instead of performing Overwatch if you so desire. While the enemy still moves closer (failed or not, a charging model moves 2D6" towards you), but there is a chance you ruin the charge and leave an enemy exposed for other models to shoot at it.

I saw some vids on Youtube and they indicated the if you failed the charge - you could elect to move the 2d6 rolled like a normal move?

I am kind of hoping that the final release version of the game does add in a way to add specialists/non-fireteam members in to the campaign as you go. Considering (for example) the Tau, if you wanted to have a team where you could add more Stealth Suits, Breachers and Pathfinders during the campaign, you'd need to have your 20-point Stealth Suit not be a leader or specialist, then you'd need to have ideally 1-2 of each of the others as non-specialists before you start adding in the special weapon guys. Also, because Drones are explicitly not part of a fire-team, you'd need your initial team to be jam-packed with all the drones you'd ever want during the campaign, because there's no way to replace those either.

Just seems like a strange restriction to have in a game that's very explicitly trying to avoid the "I rolled bad my first injury rolls now I'm screwed" problem of skirmish game campaigns. Because you absolutely CAN get screwed - you could theoretically lose all your specialists and leaders the first game and have no way to get them back. I hope I either missed a rule or misinterpreted it somehow and that preview article was right.

Final release version of the game? The rulebook's out this weekend. That's it. It's done.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Final release version of the game? The rulebook's out this weekend. That's it. It's done.

well first off, if you think this is the only book you'll ever need to buy to play kill team I have a bridge in brooklyn that I could sell you for a great price. Second, I read through a small ~10 page packet that was available for people interested in trying out the game at the GW store, not the full rulebook. What I'm saying is I hope in the full rulebook that gets clarified.

Has there been any new info or even rumours about the Rogue Trader thing? That seems way cooler than the base game...

the_scotsman wrote:
I am kind of hoping that the final release version of the game does add in a way to add specialists/non-fireteam members in to the campaign as you go. Considering (for example) the Tau, if you wanted to have a team where you could add more Stealth Suits, Breachers and Pathfinders during the campaign, you'd need to have your 20-point Stealth Suit not be a leader or specialist, then you'd need to have ideally 1-2 of each of the others as non-specialists before you start adding in the special weapon guys. Also, because Drones are explicitly not part of a fire-team, you'd need your initial team to be jam-packed with all the drones you'd ever want during the campaign, because there's no way to replace those either.

Just seems like a strange restriction to have in a game that's very explicitly trying to avoid the "I rolled bad my first injury rolls now I'm screwed" problem of skirmish game campaigns. Because you absolutely CAN get screwed - you could theoretically lose all your specialists and leaders the first game and have no way to get them back. I hope I either missed a rule or misinterpreted it somehow and that preview article was right.

Well, to provide some perspective...
1.) The recruitment system makes sense when you consider the effect it has on starting teams; It forces a player to bring a little bit of everything, or risk being really good at a few things with less options down the road. In a way, it's a fulcrum for long and short term balancing. My group has discussed it at length, and we've determined that we'll probably do some more involved campaign play without the restriction, but for most games it's fine.
2.) The chance of 'getting screwed' in this game is pretty low. It's almost a nonissue for the most part.
3.) I feel like campaigns will benefit from having a selection of fighters, say 200 points for a short game, and that as people lose models they replace them from their preselected pool, with only rare freebie replenishment points.
4.) There are going to be expansions, so all this could change, especially if enough people are vocal with GW.

 Crimson wrote:
Has there been any new info or even rumours about the Rogue Trader thing? That seems way cooler than the base game...

Don't get me wrong, I'm eagerly anticipating the release, I'm hoping for a proper Imperial Navy faction too, but I got the impression from the teasers that it was basically a "counts as" Inquistorial Henchmen Retinue packaged with Zone Mortalis environment rules on a Space Hulk tiles using the base Kill Team ruleset.

Seriously, I think if you have a copy of the old Forgeworld PDF to use as your killzone rules and set of Space Hulk tiles (any edition) you’re probably not far off the mark. Just use the Zone Mortalis Strategems as Tactics Cards, I think they even had points that corresponded to CPs. Bam! Day 0 Rogue Trader.

the_scotsman wrote:
I am kind of hoping that the final release version of the game does add in a way to add specialists/non-fireteam members in to the campaign as you go. Considering (for example) the Tau, if you wanted to have a team where you could add more Stealth Suits, Breachers and Pathfinders during the campaign, you'd need to have your 20-point Stealth Suit not be a leader or specialist, then you'd need to have ideally 1-2 of each of the others as non-specialists before you start adding in the special weapon guys. Also, because Drones are explicitly not part of a fire-team, you'd need your initial team to be jam-packed with all the drones you'd ever want during the campaign, because there's no way to replace those either.

Just seems like a strange restriction to have in a game that's very explicitly trying to avoid the "I rolled bad my first injury rolls now I'm screwed" problem of skirmish game campaigns. Because you absolutely CAN get screwed - you could theoretically lose all your specialists and leaders the first game and have no way to get them back. I hope I either missed a rule or misinterpreted it somehow and that preview article was right.

Note that for a campaign you create a combat roster of up to 20 models. Then when you start a kill team mission you make a kill team out of 100 points of models from your combat roster. There's no restriction on taking multiple of the same specialisation on your combat roster, so you can have backups for any casualties if you really can't live without a certain specialty.

Neronoxx wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I am kind of hoping that the final release version of the game does add in a way to add specialists/non-fireteam members in to the campaign as you go. Considering (for example) the Tau, if you wanted to have a team where you could add more Stealth Suits, Breachers and Pathfinders during the campaign, you'd need to have your 20-point Stealth Suit not be a leader or specialist, then you'd need to have ideally 1-2 of each of the others as non-specialists before you start adding in the special weapon guys. Also, because Drones are explicitly not part of a fire-team, you'd need your initial team to be jam-packed with all the drones you'd ever want during the campaign, because there's no way to replace those either.

Just seems like a strange restriction to have in a game that's very explicitly trying to avoid the "I rolled bad my first injury rolls now I'm screwed" problem of skirmish game campaigns. Because you absolutely CAN get screwed - you could theoretically lose all your specialists and leaders the first game and have no way to get them back. I hope I either missed a rule or misinterpreted it somehow and that preview article was right.

Well, to provide some perspective...
1.) The recruitment system makes sense when you consider the effect it has on starting teams; It forces a player to bring a little bit of everything, or risk being really good at a few things with less options down the road. In a way, it's a fulcrum for long and short term balancing. My group has discussed it at length, and we've determined that we'll probably do some more involved campaign play without the restriction, but for most games it's fine.
2.) The chance of 'getting screwed' in this game is pretty low. It's almost a nonissue for the most part.
3.) I feel like campaigns will benefit from having a selection of fighters, say 200 points for a short game, and that as people lose models they replace them from their preselected pool, with only rare freebie replenishment points.
4.) There are going to be expansions, so all this could change, especially if enough people are vocal with GW.

Edit: There's what I was missing. Starting from a roster of 20 models is a much more forgiving system.

 Redemption wrote:

Note that for a campaign you create a combat roster of up to 20 models.

Do I understand correctly that there are no limits, restrictions or points for this combat roster (unlike for the actual team for each battle)? It is just any 20 models available to your faction?

 Crimson wrote:

 Redemption wrote:

Note that for a campaign you create a combat roster of up to 20 models.

Do I understand correctly that there are no limits, restrictions or points for this combat roster (unlike for the actual team for each battle)? It is just any 20 models available to your faction?

That’s what it sounds like